2003 (8) TMI 557 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. in light of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.
2. Whether the plaintiffs' right to file a suit for specific performance affects the maintainability of the injunction suit.
3. The relevance of the supplementary agreement and subsequent sale deeds to the injunction suit.
4. The trial court's decision to reject the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit for Permanent Injunction:
The petitioners argued that the suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondents is not maintainable because an equally efficacious remedy, i.e., a suit for specific performance, is available. They cited Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, which states that an injunction cannot be granted when an equally efficacious relief can be obtained by another usual mode of proceeding. The trial court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., leading to this civil revision petition.

2. Plaintiffs' Right to File a Suit for Specific Performance:
The respondents contended that their possession was conceded in various proceedings, and they had obtained interim injunctions. They also highlighted that they had reserved their right to file a separate suit for specific performance, which they did in O.S.No.113 of 1999, later withdrawn after a compromise. The respondents argued that the suit for bare injunction is to protect their permissive and legal possession, and thus, Section 41(h) does not bar the suit.

3. Supplementary Agreement and Subsequent Sale Deeds:
The respondents pointed out that a supplementary agreement dated 15.2.2000 was executed, and subsequent sale deeds were executed by the petitioners over some portions of the suit properties. They argued that this supplementary agreement and the subsequent actions indicate that the bar under Section 41(h) does not apply.

4. Trial Court's Decision:
The trial court held that the issue of whether Section 41(h) applies should be decided at the conclusion of the trial based on the materials placed before the court. The court observed that Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. mandates the rejection of the plaint if the suit appears to be barred by any law. However, it requires further consideration to determine if the suit is indeed barred by Section 41(h).

The court noted that the plaintiffs had reserved their right to file a suit for specific performance and had established permissive possession. The court also referred to various judgments indicating that if there is any doubt or if the court is not certain that the suit is barred by law, the plaint should not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that it could not definitively say that Section 41(h) applies to the present case, especially considering the plaintiffs' reservation to file a separate suit for specific performance and the supplementary agreement. The court emphasized that the power to reject a plaint should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases where it is absolutely clear that the plaintiff does not have an arguable case.

Direction for Joint Trial:
For convenience and comprehensive decision-making, the court directed that O.S.No.296 of 1998 be transferred to the Sub Court, Dharapuram, to be tried along with O.S.No.362 of 2001. This ensures that all issues can be decided together by the same court.

Disposition:
The civil revision petition was disposed of, and C.M.P.No.6864 of 2003 was dismissed.